Privatizing Marriage

[Fields]

My article for my school paper. I'd love feedback.



http://media.www.studentvoiceonline.com/media/storage/paper808/news/2008/05/01/OpinionViewpoint/Let-The.People.Decide.What.Marriage.Is.Not.The.Governm ent-3361471.shtml?reffeature=popuarstoriestab

[Alex Libman]

Marriage is a contract between individuals, the government shouldn't be in any way involved.

I'll even go one step further and say that that polygamy is a good idea economically: there are fewer men out there willing to be good fathers than there are women willing to be good mothers. Forced monogamy is the ultimate form of socialism - it results in lower overall birth rates, persecution of homosexuals, lower average parent income, and more children growing up in broken homes!

[Fields]

Marriage is a contract between individuals, the government shouldn't be in any way involved.

I'll even go one step further and say that that polygamy is a good idea economically: there are fewer men out there willing to be good fathers than there are women willing to be good mothers. Forced monogamy is the ultimate form of socialism - it results in lower overall birth rates, persecution of homosexuals, lower average parent income, and more children growing up in broken homes!

I have yet to read a good argument for polygamy, although I do see where you are taking it. Might you point me in the direction of more information?

[RonPaulVolunteer]

Marriage is a contract between individuals, the government shouldn't be in any way involved.

I'll even go one step further and say that that polygamy is a good idea economically: there are fewer men out there willing to be good fathers than there are women willing to be good mothers. Forced monogamy is the ultimate form of socialism - it results in lower overall birth rates, persecution of homosexuals, lower average parent income, and more children growing up in broken homes!

Um, you defend high birth rates, and then want to encourage homosexuality?
When you strip the emotionalism from the issue, the logical conclusion of homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end. Not low birth rates, ZERO birth rates. If homosexuality was genetic which homosexuals claim while geneticists refute, it's unlikely we would have anything but an extremely rare case of homosexuality popup because neo-darwinism would have eradicated that trait as it doesn't just not offer a survival advantage, it provides a stark reproductive dead end.

I just thought it was funny you threw that in there. Perhaps the issue is close to home? Even so, you need to be able to look at the issue objectively and truthfully if you're going to write about it.

[Knightskye]

I don't like the idea - and the description in the article was vague.

So, a private company could marry people, like a church could? Would they have to sign a giant contract?

[slamhead]

Marriage is a contract between individuals, the government shouldn't be in any way involved.

I'll even go one step further and say that that polygamy is a good idea economically: there are fewer men out there willing to be good fathers than there are women willing to be good mothers. Forced monogamy is the ultimate form of socialism - it results in lower overall birth rates, persecution of homosexuals, lower average parent income, and more children growing up in broken homes!

You miss a big point here. Where do the polygamist get their money? In some of the interviews when asked where the sect gets its money....the polygamist played dumb and would not answer the question because the answer is they get it from the tax payers. The polygamist have one "legal" wife and the other's marriages are recognized by the church. The "spiritually married" wives file for welfare as single mothers and collect welfare.

In John Krakauer's book "Under the Banner of Heaven" he spells it all out. In Colorado City alone they receive some $6 million a year in public funds. They bilked the feds for $2.8 million to build an airport that only services the FLDS church. They received $1.9 million from the U.S. Department of Housing.

One polygamist, Tom Green, with all his children between 1989 and 1999 received more than $647,000 in state and federal assistance, including $203,000 in food stamps and $300,000 in medical and dental expenses. As far back as 1985 they estimate he has received well over a million in welfare.

The FDLS call it bleeding the beast as they see governments as satanic organization out to destroy them.

[Fields]

I don't like the idea - and the description in the article was vague.

So, a private company could marry people, like a church could? Would they have to sign a giant contract?

When I say privatize, I mean take GOVERNMENT OUT of the loop.

No, grant ALL people that want to be together civil unions say so that all can receive benefits and protections and relegate "marriage" to the religious institutions.

[Fields]

You miss a big point here. Where do the polygamist get their money? In some of the interviews when asked where the sect gets its money....the polygamist played dumb and would not answer the question because the answer is they get it from the tax payers. The polygamist have one "legal" wife and the other's marriages are recognized by the church. The "spiritually married" wives file for welfare as single mothers and collect welfare.

In John Krakauer's book "Under the Banner of Heaven" he spells it all out. In Colorado City alone they receive some $6 million a year in public funds. They bilked the feds for $2.8 million to build an airport that only services the FLDS church. They received $1.9 million from the U.S. Department of Housing.

One polygamist, Tom Green, with all his children between 1989 and 1999 received more than $647,000 in state and federal assistance, including $203,000 in food stamps and $300,000 in medical and dental expenses. As far back as 1985 they estimate he has received well over a million in welfare.

The FDLS call it bleeding the beast as they see governments as satanic organization out to destroy them.

I haven't researched polygamy and find all this fascinating, thanks for the information.

[homah]

Um, you defend high birth rates, and then want to encourage homosexuality?
When you strip the emotionalism from the issue, the logical conclusion of homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end. Not low birth rates, ZERO birth rates. If homosexuality was genetic which homosexuals claim while geneticists refute, it's unlikely we would have anything but an extremely rare case of homosexuality popup because neo-darwinism would have eradicated that trait as it doesn't just not offer a survival advantage, it provides a stark reproductive dead end.

I just thought it was funny you threw that in there. Perhaps the issue is close to home? Even so, you need to be able to look at the issue objectively and truthfully if you're going to write about it.

What is the point of this post? No one said anything about "encouraging homosexuality."

[AlexMerced]

Um, you defend high birth rates, and then want to encourage homosexuality?
When you strip the emotionalism from the issue, the logical conclusion of homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end. Not low birth rates, ZERO birth rates. If homosexuality was genetic which homosexuals claim while geneticists refute, it's unlikely we would have anything but an extremely rare case of homosexuality popup because neo-darwinism would have eradicated that trait as it doesn't just not offer a survival advantage, it provides a stark reproductive dead end.

I just thought it was funny you threw that in there. Perhaps the issue is close to home? Even so, you need to be able to look at the issue objectively and truthfully if you're going to write about it.

My response to this argument is overpopulation is just a much as underpopulation to the survival of a species, as you see when the natural eco-system is set of balance certain species will changes gender to to make up for the imbalance.

So why can't homosexuality be be natural imperative to balance out the over population.

The point being, the biological imperative argument goes both ways. I don't see the big deal, I don't think we hav e ashortage of people, except maybe in Japan where policy is forming to encourage procreation and their child birth rate downfall has to do more with productivity than homosexuality.

So should we ban productivity if it makes the birth rate drop?

Just asking what are very reasonable questions?

[Kludge]

Hooray OP for bringing this up. The State has no right to know who I'm married to, and DEFINITELY does not have authority to give benefits to married couples.

Marriage is for The Church and The People. The State is not in that process.

[RonPaulVolunteer]

My response to this argument is overpopulation is just a much as underpopulation to the survival of a species, as you see when the natural eco-system is set of balance certain species will changes gender to to make up for the imbalance.

So why can't homosexuality be be natural imperative to balance out the over population.

The point being, the biological imperative argument goes both ways. I don't see the big deal, I don't think we hav e ashortage of people, except maybe in Japan where policy is forming to encourage procreation and their child birth rate downfall has to do more with productivity than homosexuality.

So should we ban productivity if it makes the birth rate drop?

Just asking what are very reasonable questions?

No. Evolution is blind. You're invoking intelligence. As Dawkins teaches about the selfish gene, evolution looks to individual survival and survival of its offspring. Evolution knows nothing of population control and/or the merits of over or underpopulation. It is singularly focussed on survival of the fittest.

You are also avoiding the fact that a homosexual does not pass on their genes, and therefore as I have already said, a trait of homosexuality would very quickly be removed from the gene pool.

Homosexuality is part choice, part environmental influence.

I have seen some arguments that attempt to provide a neo-darwinian explanation for homosexuality, but they require always at least some level of inferred intelligence. True believers in evolution will have none of that.

The cold hard truth, is that if homosexuality was the result of random mutation and natural selection, we would be forced to admit the obvious, that it is a mutation that does not infer functional advantage and should, and would, therefore be eliminated.

I don't believe I have ever heard of a homosexual requesting gene therapy to cure his/her mutation. A homosexual does after-all WANT to be a homosexual. Gay PRIDE. A woman born sterile on the other hand has great sorrow and looks for a solution. I have never heard of the Sterile Pride movement.

Lust has a way of justifying its behavior, but science is science.

[nate895]

The church should handle it as it had in the past. The only thing the government should do in it is tell employers that they have to recognize the marriage for benefit purposes.

[sratiug]

No. Evolution is blind. You're invoking intelligence. As Dawkins teaches about the selfish gene, evolution looks to individual survival and survival of its offspring. Evolution knows nothing of population control and/or the merits of over or underpopulation. It is singularly focussed on survival of the fittest.

You are also avoiding the fact that a homosexual does not pass on their genes, and therefore as I have already said, a trait of homosexuality would very quickly be removed from the gene pool.

Homosexuality is part choice, part environmental influence.

I have seen some arguments that attempt to provide a neo-darwinian explanation for homosexuality, but they require always at least some level of inferred intelligence. True believers in evolution will have none of that.

The cold hard truth, is that if homosexuality was the result of random mutation and natural selection, we would be forced to admit the obvious, that it is a mutation that does not infer functional advantage and should, and would, therefore be eliminated.

I don't believe I have ever heard of a homosexual requesting gene therapy to cure his/her mutation. A homosexual does after-all WANT to be a homosexual. Gay PRIDE. A woman born sterile on the other hand has great sorrow and looks for a solution. I have never heard of the Sterile Pride movement.

Lust has a way of justifying its behavior, but science is science.

So you are saying that gay men never have sex with women?

I say two male lions having sex in the San Diego Zoo. What possible evolutionary advantage would there be for any genetic disease? None? So there are none?

[RonPaulVolunteer]

So you are saying that gay men never have sex with women?

I say two male lions having sex in the San Diego Zoo. What possible evolutionary advantage would there be for any genetic disease? None? So there are none?

Ahhh.... What possible advantage would there be for any disease? None? So there are none? ????

DNA/RNA copying errors happen frequently, it's HOW evolution works.

[Dave39168]

The church should handle it as it had in the past. The only thing the government should do in it is tell employers that they have to recognize the marriage for benefit purposes.

I would argue that married couples should not recieve special benifits that singles don't recieve. This is where a lot of the argument for legalizing homosexual marriage comes from... they want the benifits. If the government recognized us all as individuals, and employers gave benifits on an individual basis, then it wouldn't matter who was married and to whom. Homosexuals, polygamist, heterosexuals, singles, and everyone else would be treated equal. I say just get the government out of marriage alltogether. The government shouldn't know or care if you are married. Let it be an agreement between two (or more) people as they see fit and that works well for them. Wether that means by a pastor, a priest, a Rabbi, in front of friends and family, or in private place. Let the individual decide what kind of arrangement they want. And let the government treat us all as individuals.

[sratiug]

I took the liberty of editing your very good article to my taste...


In the impassioned debate of whether same sex couples should be allowed to marry, there is a big push in California for the Protect Marriage Act. It would amend the state constitution to clarify that a marriage is between a man and woman. Both sides of this bitter fight are misconstruing the reality. Why do people, whether gay or straight, need the approval of the state to marry?

Marriage was always a religious function until the Lord Earl of Hardwicke's Marriage Act of 1754 which began the unruly regulatory mess we are in today. Meanwhile, in the New England colonies justices and magistrates were performing marriages imposed under British rule.

Beginning in the mid-20th century, government began to get out of the business of deciding who could and should marry. Courts struck down laws prohibiting interracial marriage. They even protected the marriage rights of prisoners. Yet, with all this improvement there is still one group that is continually denied the opportunity of marriage: homosexuals.

The free-market solution is simple yet extremely effective in fixing this bitter battle. Privatize marriage. Businesspeople have long been able to form any sort of partnership they felt appropriate to their needs. Why not make the same guidelines applicable to marriage, which is a partnership based on one of the oldest types of contractual relationships.

With this arrangement, the gay-marriage problem is solved by the state eliminating benefits and legal protections to couples of any type.

Churches, synagogues, and temples can maintain their control on what marriages they would approve and bless. If it's preferred to just be married in front of family and friends then that's okay too. Freedom of choice and freedom of contract go hand in hand (pun not intended) when one wants to create equality in the institution of marriage.

Marriage is vital to the health of our country. It has the intrinsic value to build strong families and communities through civil society. Eliminating government interference in this sacred act is the only way to preserve its benefits. From the Constitution:



Amendment 13 - Slavery Abolished. Ratified 12/6/1865.

1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

According to this amendment, divorce from a legal marriage is very often considered a crime, otherwise no one could be forced to pay alimony or child support.

Likewise:


Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This amendment says we shall all have the same rights, priviledges and immunities, whether married or not. So unequal benefits based on marriage or children are unconstitutional.

Taking this argument a step further into real controversy, any constitutional amendment should address only the fundamental issue at stake, child custody. My proposal is that the simplest solution is the best. Grant women the custody of their children, period. Without the state forcing benefits to the custodial parent there might be more "benefit" to staying married. And court custody battles are an afront to human decency.

Another controversial comment on marriage would be that the state, through laws and forced public schooling, is delaying the natural marriage age past high school. This perversion of natural tendencies results in people being too sheltered growing up, engaging in more pre-marital sex, leaving people they are first drawn to because they are too young to get married (but not too young to have sex) and being unable to make the correct decisions at the right times in their lives to be successful in marriage.

[sratiug]

Ahhh.... What possible advantage would there be for any disease? None? So there are none? ????

DNA/RNA copying errors happen frequently, it's HOW evolution works.

And these errors are passed on for genetic diseases, though they have no survival benefit. So you just refuted your own argument against genetic homosexuality. (something I am not necessarily a firm believer in, but I don't really see it as my business anyway)

[RonPaulVolunteer]

And these errors are passed on for genetic diseases, though they have no survival benefit. So you just refuted your own argument against genetic homosexuality. (something I am not necessarily a firm believer in, but I don't really see it as my business anyway)

Um, no I didn't at all. Perhaps reread my full dialogue instead of just a portion of it.

[Danke]

I would argue that married couples should not recieve special benifits that singles don't recieve. This is where a lot of the argument for legalizing homosexual marriage comes from... they want the benifits. If the government recognized us all as individuals, and employers gave benifits on an individual basis, then it wouldn't matter who was married and to whom. Homosexuals, polygamist, heterosexuals, singles, and everyone else would be treated equal. I say just get the government out of marriage alltogether. The government shouldn't know or care if you are married. Let it be an agreement between two (or more) people as they see fit and that works well for them. Wether that means by a pastor, a priest, a Rabbi, in front of friends and family, or in private place. Let the individual decide what kind of arrangement they want. And let the government treat us all as individuals.

+1

[nate895]

I would argue that married couples should not recieve special benifits that singles don't recieve. This is where a lot of the argument for legalizing homosexual marriage comes from... they want the benifits. If the government recognized us all as individuals, and employers gave benifits on an individual basis, then it wouldn't matter who was married and to whom. Homosexuals, polygamist, heterosexuals, singles, and everyone else would be treated equal. I say just get the government out of marriage alltogether. The government shouldn't know or care if you are married. Let it be an agreement between two (or more) people as they see fit and that works well for them. Wether that means by a pastor, a priest, a Rabbi, in front of friends and family, or in private place. Let the individual decide what kind of arrangement they want. And let the government treat us all as individuals.

Then you are forced to have both parents working, and that is unfair for people who want or believe it is their religious obligation to stay home and raise their children.

[Danke]

Then you are forced to have both parents working, and that is unfair for people who want or believe it is their religious obligation to stay home and raise their children.

What?!?!


Lack of government intervention now means forcing ? This on a Ron Paul Forum. Someone wake me up when its over...

[nate895]

What?!?!


Lack of government intervention now means forcing ? This on a Ron Paul Forum. Someone wake me up when its over...

It doesn't involve much. This is what the government is there to do, to protect people's rights. Government inaction when there's gang violence forces people to live in fear of dying. It is no different when the government doesn't tell employers to recognize a marriage and let the employers treat them the same as their policy. Also, if we looked at it on an individual basis, what about children? Should we force parents to pay for their children's health insurance when their employers policy previous to that was to pay it?

[Fields]

Thanks for your input sratiug.

[josephadel_3]

"In the impassioned debate of whether same sex couples should be allowed to marry."

The above is a sentence fragment.

[Fields]

"In the impassioned debate of whether same sex couples should be allowed to marry."

The above is a sentence fragment.

Bravo. That is why the sentence doesn't end there.

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

No. Evolution is blind. You're invoking intelligence. As Dawkins teaches about the selfish gene, evolution looks to individual survival and survival of its offspring. Evolution knows nothing of population control and/or the merits of over or underpopulation. It is singularly focussed on survival of the fittest.

You are also avoiding the fact that a homosexual does not pass on their genes, and therefore as I have already said, a trait of homosexuality would very quickly be removed from the gene pool.

Homosexuality is part choice, part environmental influence.

I have seen some arguments that attempt to provide a neo-darwinian explanation for homosexuality, but they require always at least some level of inferred intelligence. True believers in evolution will have none of that.

The cold hard truth, is that if homosexuality was the result of random mutation and natural selection, we would be forced to admit the obvious, that it is a mutation that does not infer functional advantage and should, and would, therefore be eliminated.

I don't believe I have ever heard of a homosexual requesting gene therapy to cure his/her mutation. A homosexual does after-all WANT to be a homosexual. Gay PRIDE. A woman born sterile on the other hand has great sorrow and looks for a solution. I have never heard of the Sterile Pride movement.

Lust has a way of justifying its behavior, but science is science.


"Homosexuality is part choice"????

oh please. How much time have you spent in a sit down talking with homosexuals about why they are the way they are??? Since the science is still out on where homosexuality comes from, then the debate is relegated to moral, social, and (apparently) economic terms. However, just as you would learn the truth about the Ron Paul Revolution not from TV but from actual Paulites, you will never truly understand what it means to be a homosexual until you actual speak with many of them.

As for the environment argue, that is flat stupid. (For privacy i'll change names)

Joe, was born and raised in south Texas. By the age of 21 he was a pastor at the local Baptist church. He married and had two children. None of his 8 brothers and sisters are gay. None of his friends were gay. There was not an environement of homosexuality anywhere around where he was growing up. He didn't "come out" until 7 years after his divorce. While living as an openly gay man he raised his daughter and son. Both of whom are not gay.

This is a true story of someone I know very well. With the stigma and social injustice that comes along with being gay, why would anyone choose to be? It's like being black, white, heterosexual, or Asian. You didn't choose, you just are.

Now as far as what the Bible says about being gay, that is up to you. You can either believe a book someone wrote thousands of years ago, or you can find out for yourself. That is a real choice.

[BarryDonegan]

with all due respect, and I'm not offering this as a statement that homosexuals choose to be homosexuals or any such stuff, to be honest I don't really know and it is not a big part of my life, but it is not evidence that someone would not choose to do something just because there is a stigma associated with it.

some people enjoy doing things which have a stigma associated with it, because the negative attention excites them.

while there may be evidence out there that homosexuals are choiceless in their sexual interests, that is not evidence of it.

however, just a common sense glance to me grants that there is no one unique answer as to why homosexuality occurs. it is a case-by-case thing, as all people are unique and different.

also, different cultures have had radically different homosexual subcultures. for example, male-on-male sex acts are somewhat mainstream in arab culture and in ancient roman and greek culture. However, these societies did not have large numbers of men who refused to marry women. Rather, large numbers of people in society had no problem with performing homoerotic activities, and this was not seen as contrary to ones marriage or heterosexual life.

While this is technically bisexual, it doesn't explain why the exclusively homosexual subcultures were less represented in a society that does not taboo homosexual sex acts.

ask anyone who serves in Iraq and works with training military over there what their personal experience with homosexuality in the Middle East amongst Muslims comes across as. From what I've had explained to me, it seems as if that homosexuality sortof "legally" avoids the rules which they believe "pollutes" women... I've heard it described as "women are for babies, men are for pleasure".

While this is not something mainstream culture will relay to you, let's just suppose in Iran, homosexuality is not considered a problem, because homosexual exclusive subcultures are less prevalent than mainstream bisexuality, which is not contradictory to birth rates. This might have lead to the statement that they do not "have the problem of homosexuality". Once again, this is not something I know to be fact, just something I draw from hearing many different US Soldiers in Iraq talk about it when they come home.

[homah]

Bravo. That is why the sentence doesn't end there.

Before being sarcastic towards someone for his helpful input, why not take a look at your article first and confirm that he wasn't correct (because he was, in this case).

[kigol]

uhh ohh.

[Dave39168]

It doesn't involve much. This is what the government is there to do, to protect people's rights. Government inaction when there's gang violence forces people to live in fear of dying. It is no different when the government doesn't tell employers to recognize a marriage and let the employers treat them the same as their policy. Also, if we looked at it on an individual basis, what about children? Should we force parents to pay for their children's health insurance when their employers policy previous to that was to pay it?


Then you are forced to have both parents working, and that is unfair for people who want or believe it is their religious obligation to stay home and raise their children.

Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying. The government should force my employer to cover my wife with benefits equal to mine?

I do believe that if mom (or whoever) wants to stay home while dad (or whoever) brings home the bacon that is fine. But Mom shouldn't get benefits automatically, Dad should pay for them. And if they have one kid then Dad should pay for any benefits for the kid. And if they have ten kids then he should pay ten times as much to cover all his children. That is only fair. Let the employer set exactly what the policy is to be. If the policy sucks he will lose a lot of good employees. If its generous and fair he will attract the finest employees to his business. But whatever the policy, someone must pay for each (wife and kids) individual's benefits.

If I'm single with no kids, and my coworker is married and has 5 kids, then should he not be paying more to cover himself and 6 others than what i pay to cover just myself? It only seems fair.

Oh and btw as long as the government treats us all as individuals it doesn't matter what your religion is. They don't have to know, care, or even recognize your religion. And if your religion says your wife should stay at home, that's great, but if she wants insurance, somebody's got to pay for it.

I don't know how practical this idea is, but it makes sense to me. Let the employer set the policy and the market will dictate what policies are best for their employees (b/c noone can force you to work there). Besides, I think the employer or the insurer has a right to make their own policies however they see fit. I honestly think that many of the controversial problems we face would work themselves out if the government allowed for a true free market.

[ryanmkeisling]

Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying. The government should force my employer to cover my wife with benefits equal to mine?

I do believe that if mom (or whoever) wants to stay home while dad (or whoever) brings home the bacon that is fine. But Mom shouldn't get benefits automatically, Dad should pay for them. And if they have one kid then Dad should pay for any benefits for the kid. And if they have ten kids then he should pay ten times as much to cover all his children. That is only fair. Let the employer set exactly what the policy is to be. If the policy sucks he will lose a lot of good employees. If its generous and fair he will attract the finest employees to his business. But whatever the policy, someone must pay for each (wife and kids) individual's benefits.

If I'm single with no kids, and my coworker is married and has 5 kids, then should he not be paying more to cover himself and 6 others than what i pay to cover just myself? It only seems fair.

Oh and btw as long as the government treats us all as individuals it doesn't matter what your religion is. They don't have to know, care, or even recognize your religion. And if your religion says your wife should stay at home, that's great, but if she wants insurance, somebody's got to pay for it.

I don't know how practical this idea is, but it makes sense to me. Let the employer set the policy and the market will dictate what policies are best for their employees (b/c noone can force you to work there). Besides, I think the employer or the insurer has a right to make their own policies however they see fit. I honestly think that many of the controversial problems we face would work themselves out if the government allowed for a true free market.
I agree for the most part but I am more interested in nate's response as I am having trouble understanding what he is driving at...

[nate895]

Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying. The government should force my employer to cover my wife with benefits equal to mine?

I do believe that if mom (or whoever) wants to stay home while dad (or whoever) brings home the bacon that is fine. But Mom shouldn't get benefits automatically, Dad should pay for them. And if they have one kid then Dad should pay for any benefits for the kid. And if they have ten kids then he should pay ten times as much to cover all his children. That is only fair. Let the employer set exactly what the policy is to be. If the policy sucks he will lose a lot of good employees. If its generous and fair he will attract the finest employees to his business. But whatever the policy, someone must pay for each (wife and kids) individual's benefits.

If I'm single with no kids, and my coworker is married and has 5 kids, then should he not be paying more to cover himself and 6 others than what i pay to cover just myself? It only seems fair.

Oh and btw as long as the government treats us all as individuals it doesn't matter what your religion is. They don't have to know, care, or even recognize your religion. And if your religion says your wife should stay at home, that's great, but if she wants insurance, somebody's got to pay for it.

I don't know how practical this idea is, but it makes sense to me. Let the employer set the policy and the market will dictate what policies are best for their employees (b/c noone can force you to work there). Besides, I think the employer or the insurer has a right to make their own policies however they see fit. I honestly think that many of the controversial problems we face would work themselves out if the government allowed for a true free market.

I was talking about if the employers policy is now that married couples and their children are entitled to benefits, then the government should stipulate that the marriages in this new way of doing things should have the same benefits as the old ones. If a company changes its policy, that's fine, but if they keep rejecting people's legitimate spouses, that's a problem. A lot of the reason why this is important is that if you have a spouse with a chronic illness, there is no way to get health insurance except through work, and it would be inhumane to all of the sudden take away 80% of their coverage (the other 20% is Medicare, which we'd eliminate, right?) with no way to get it back. There is no way to pay for $250,000 procedures that must be done without health insurance for the average family.

[Dave39168]

I'm no insurance expert.

But, if the market was deregulated and the FDA didn't create monopolies in the medical industry, that $250,000 of procedures might run you more like $80,000-$90,000. Look at cosmetic surgery and lasiks. Cost has been coming down over the years because these are elective so there is some actual competition there. But then look at orthopedics, because of all the government involvement and mandated surgeries (medicare etc) there is no competition and prices have consistently gone up. Another exe: Emergency treatments are absolutely required by law (and maybe they should be) and costs are rediculously high in this area. I understand the nature of emergency medicine causes it to be somewhat more costly, but i think this is still an example of how mandated treatment inflates costs well beyond the actual market value.

Point being, if the government mandates anything, consequently, costs start rising due to decreased competition. That is a good reason not to mandate insurance coverage as well.

I don't really know how to respond to your post except saying that it would be wrong for the government to mandate coverage for anyone. The government should enforce contracts between the employer and the employee. But should not force employers to cover anyone.

That might sound grim for some people's situations (chronic expensive illness), and that is unfortunate for them. But to me its the only fair way.

Its nice to note that if we reduced the regulation and welfare in the medical market, procedures might actually become affordable for said chronic and expensive illness. It would take some time to get there while the market recovered but eventually I think you would be able to afford needed health care again. The government involvement has driven the costs of health care through the roof, and then some people (the dems) suggest more involvement?....anyway

Ok that got kinda off topic but i think it does tie back in to privatizing marriage. Reducing government mandates equals maximized liberty. Maximized liberty does not always equal maximized comfort though (as in the case with the chronically ill spouse).

[Fields]

You guys put a lot of thought into your answers, good to see some thinkers.

[Fields]

Before being sarcastic towards someone for his helpful input, why not take a look at your article first and confirm that he wasn't correct (because he was, in this case).

Wow, it WAS a complete sentence. I pulled up my copy in word and saw it correctly, which is why I jumped to conclusions. My apologies. Guess the editor thought he was smarter. :p

[nate895]

I'm no insurance expert.

But, if the market was deregulated and the FDA didn't create monopolies in the medical industry, that $250,000 of procedures might run you more like $80,000-$90,000. Look at cosmetic surgery and lasiks. Cost has been coming down over the years because these are elective so there is some actual competition there. But then look at orthopedics, because of all the government involvement and mandated surgeries (medicare etc) there is no competition and prices have consistently gone up. Another exe: Emergency treatments are absolutely required by law (and maybe they should be) and costs are rediculously high in this area. I understand the nature of emergency medicine causes it to be somewhat more costly, but i think this is still an example of how mandated treatment inflates costs well beyond the actual market value.

Point being, if the government mandates anything, consequently, costs start rising due to decreased competition. That is a good reason not to mandate insurance coverage as well.

I don't really know how to respond to your post except saying that it would be wrong for the government to mandate coverage for anyone. The government should enforce contracts between the employer and the employee. But should not force employers to cover anyone.

That might sound grim for some people's situations (chronic expensive illness), and that is unfortunate for them. But to me its the only fair way.

Its nice to note that if we reduced the regulation and welfare in the medical market, procedures might actually become affordable for said chronic and expensive illness. It would take some time to get there while the market recovered but eventually I think you would be able to afford needed health care again. The government involvement has driven the costs of health care through the roof, and then some people (the dems) suggest more involvement?....anyway

Ok that got kinda off topic but i think it does tie back in to privatizing marriage. Reducing government mandates equals maximized liberty. Maximized liberty does not always equal maximized comfort though (as in the case with the chronically ill spouse).

There is no competition in life or death circumstances, it is the closest one that doesn't have their head in their ass. My mom had kidney failure, and there is no way we'd be able to pay for it without my dad's medical insurance and there are two hospitals in our area close enough that offer transplants. We chose the better of the two because there is no choice when you're talking about life or death, it's the best or else.

The policy should be the same for everyone in the company. If you knowingly entered into contract that someone wouldn't be covered by benefits, that's your problem, but just because the gov't. decides not to recognize marriage anymore doesn't meant your wife should lose coverage.

[crazyfacedjenkins]

I have yet to read a good argument for polygamy, although I do see where you are taking it. Might you point me in the direction of more information?

Here's a good argument: if it feels good, do it.

[Fields]

Here's a good argument: if it feels good, do it.

hahahahaha :p

[Knightskye]

When I say privatize, I mean take GOVERNMENT OUT of the loop.

Sorry, I thought you meant turning it over to the private sector. The federal government doesn't have jurisdiction in gay marriage, because of the 10th Amendment.

But you couldn't have a double standard and make a law that says civil unions are legal in all 50 states - you'd be violating that very same 10th Amendment.

[DriftWood]

No. Evolution is blind. You're invoking intelligence. As Dawkins teaches about the selfish gene, evolution looks to individual survival and survival of its offspring. Evolution knows nothing of population control and/or the merits of over or underpopulation. It is singularly focussed on survival of the fittest.

You are also avoiding the fact that a homosexual does not pass on their genes, and therefore as I have already said, a trait of homosexuality would very quickly be removed from the gene pool.

Homosexuality is part choice, part environmental influence.

I have seen some arguments that attempt to provide a neo-darwinian explanation for homosexuality, but they require always at least some level of inferred intelligence. True believers in evolution will have none of that.

The cold hard truth, is that if homosexuality was the result of random mutation and natural selection, we would be forced to admit the obvious, that it is a mutation that does not infer functional advantage and should, and would, therefore be eliminated.

I don't believe I have ever heard of a homosexual requesting gene therapy to cure his/her mutation. A homosexual does after-all WANT to be a homosexual. Gay PRIDE. A woman born sterile on the other hand has great sorrow and looks for a solution. I have never heard of the Sterile Pride movement.

Lust has a way of justifying its behavior, but science is science.

I read somewhere an interesting theory about why homosexual, asexuality, sterility exists. It went something like, instead of genes just surviving because they are an advantage to a individual, some genes survive because they are an advantage to the family/tribe/society that the individual is part of. Its true a gene is blind, what does it care why it survives, whether it is beccause it is an advantage to the individual or the community.

How could homosexuality benifit a family? Imagine the stone age where the mortality of infants was where very high and there was a shortage of adults to care for the childeren. It might make more survival sense for the group and indirectly therefore for every individual of the group to take care of their siblings childeren. Some individuals in the group would not get childeren of their own so they could take care of their siblings childeren. It is an advantage even to the individual that does not get any childeren of their own, because some of the genes in the siblings child are the same as that of the individual. That could also explain why women live long after they are infertile, they live long so they can help take care of their grandchilderen, and indirecly make sure that their own genes survive another generation.

If this theory is correcrt there is little advantage to homosexuality and asexuality in this day and age, because child mortality is so low.

Edit: Its probably the same reason why social, moral and altruistic behavioral genes have survived, even if it would seem that in the short term such behaviour is an disadvantage to he individual.

Cheers

[ryanmkeisling]

There is no competition in life or death circumstances, it is the closest one that doesn't have their head in their ass. My mom had kidney failure, and there is no way we'd be able to pay for it without my dad's medical insurance and there are two hospitals in our area close enough that offer transplants. We chose the better of the two because there is no choice when you're talking about life or death, it's the best or else.

The policy should be the same for everyone in the company. If you knowingly entered into contract that someone wouldn't be covered by benefits, that's your problem, but just because the gov't. decides not to recognize marriage anymore doesn't meant your wife should lose coverage.

I don't think this is federally mandated to insurance companies? I worked for a long time in Massachusetts and several of my employers offered policies from companies which did not require legal marriage for coverage for a spouse/children as long as they lived with you. The government has no business being involved in any of this stuff:

"...since it doesn't fit into the typical, by-the-script story of government rescuing us from a predatory private sector...We have lost our belief that freedom works, because we no longer have the imagination to conceive of how a free people might solve its problems without introducing threats of violence --which is what government solutions ultimately amount to."-QFT

[invisible]

I have yet to read a good argument for polygamy, although I do see where you are taking it. Might you point me in the direction of more information?

Ok, this is my first post here - I've lurked on this site since May 2007, and finally have something to say that someone else hasn't already said. First, what people commonly think of as "polygamy" is actually polygyny (one male with more than one female) - polygamy could also refer to one female with several males. An argument that is overlooked is that you may not find everything you're looking for in a relationship with one person....why should a relationship be discontinued with one person if you meet someone else who has something additional to offer in the relationship? As an example, I have one (she was once one of three, but I ended the relationship with the other two due to them doing something dishonest) wonderful girl who I love very much, but due to medical reasons, she is unable to bear children for me (I do not have any yet, and the ticking of that biological clock grows louder with each passing year). I will not end my relationship with her because of this, rather our relationship will simply expand again at some future point to include another girl who can give me what she cannot. In addition, she is also bisexual, and considers having a relationship with another woman as essential as having a relationship with a man. Obviously, I cannot be a woman for her, so our relationship expanding again in the future will meet a need for her as well. A poly relationship has a VERY different dynamic than a monogamous relationship, and I wouldn't have it any other way (neither would she, for that matter). There are many different forms that a poly relationship can take, and many different ways that a poly household can be structured - it is different for everyone. As far as marriage goes, I've been through the divorce mill twice already (my second wife was also poly, and that poly relationship was structured quite differently), and am convinced that a state-sanctioned marriage offers nothing more than a tax break and an easy way for a woman to steal from a man, due to divorce laws favoring women. The only way I would ever enter into a state-sanctioned marriage again is if the girl was less than 18 years old, to avoid such a relationship being illegal - and even then, that situation seems extremely unlikely, as I've never met a parent who would give consent (but then again, this isn't something I'm actively seeking). I personally would rather keep the government out of my relationship(s) entirely, unless poly marriages were legally sanctioned by the state and divorce / custody / child support laws were changed so as not to discriminate against men - I would rather see the government's financial incentives to marry eliminated (as this is simply discrimination against people in all types of "unmarried" relationships) and discrimination against men in existing (divorce / custody / child support) laws ended before seeing poly (or even same-sex) marriages / civil unions sanctioned by the state....the playing field needs to be leveled for EVERYONE, no matter what type of relationship they may have. To sum up, there is no reason to deny someone a relationship if they have something to offer those who are already in the household - love is limitless. For those of you interested in additional reading, I offer the following links:

http://4thefamily.us/

http://www.polyfamilies.com

I will also post some additional comments on the FLDS thread in the civil liberties section, for those interested.